M/S. Ram Kripal Singh Construction PVT. LTD. vs. The State Of Bihar

Held

The Court held that the petitioner should be extended the statutory benefit of stay under Section 112(9) of the B.G.S.T. Act, subject to the deposit of 20 percent of the remaining amount of tax in dispute, in addition to any amount already deposited under Section 107(6). The Court reasoned that the petitioner cannot be deprived of this benefit due to the non-constitution of the Tribunal by the respondents. The recovery of the balance amount and any steps taken in that regard were deemed to be stayed. The Court also directed that the statutory relief of stay cannot be open-ended. The petitioner would be required to file their appeal under Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act once the Tribunal is constituted and functional. If the petitioner fails to file the appeal within the period specified upon the Tribunal's constitution, the respondent authorities would be at liberty to proceed. The Court also ordered the release of any attachment of the petitioner's bank account if the 20 percent deposit is made. This relief was granted in line with a similar order in the case of SAJ Food Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of Bihar & Others.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Ram Kripal Singh Construction Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition seeking to avail the statutory remedy of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 112 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax (B.G.S.T.) Act. However, the petitioner was unable to file the appeal and obtain a stay on the recovery of the balance tax amount due to the non-constitution of the Tribunal. The State authorities, acknowledging this issue, issued a notification under Section 172 of the B.G.S.T. Act, stating that the period of limitation for filing an appeal would commence only after the President of the Tribunal entered office. The petitioner sought relief from the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the statutory benefit of stay of recovery of the balance amount of tax under Section 112(9) of the B.G.S.T. Act, despite the non-constitution of the Appellate Tribunal? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contended that they are being deprived of their statutory remedy of appeal and the consequential benefit of stay of recovery due to the inaction of the respondents in constituting the Tribunal. They argued that the non-constitution of the Tribunal should not prejudice their right to seek a stay, especially when a notification has been issued to address the limitation period. They relied on the principle that a party should not suffer due to the administrative failure of the State. Revenue's Argument: The respondent State authorities acknowledged the non-constitution of the Tribunal and had issued a notification under Section 172 of the B.G.S.T. Act to address the issue of limitation. Their stance was implicitly that the Court should provide a mechanism to allow the petitioner to avail the stay benefit under Section 112(9) pending the constitution of the Tribunal, as indicated by their acknowledgment and the issuance of the notification.